The Constitutional Court announced the acceptance of the application for non-applicability due to unconstitutionality, in relation to the phrase “in accordance with the provisions of the two previous articles” contained in Article 23 of Law No. 20129, Which establishes a National Quality Assurance System for Higher Education.
The pending administration affects an appeal for protection, which is followed by the Supreme Court. The protection lawsuit has been filed against an official letter issued by the National Council of Education (CNED) declaring that the appeal submitted by the requesting university will not be accepted, regarding the decision of the National Accreditation Committee, in which it ordered the maintenance of a 3-year accreditation from the Metropolitan University of Education Sciences (UMCE).
The requesting university believes that there is no reasonable and proportionate basis allowing for the exclusion of the second paragraph of Article 20 of the general principle of vulnerability, which states that any administrative action can be challenged by the concerned party through administrative remedies for replacement and hierarchy without prejudice to the exceptional appeal for review and resources Others specified by special laws). Furthermore, access to independent review of all instances of CNA decisions relating to institutional accreditation must be guaranteed, particularly when it comes to high-dose decisions of discretion.
In addition, it claims that the right to equality before the law has been violated, by creating significant legal inequality given that while all those administered have the right to dual status, the university has been denied it without reasonable and proportionate justification. She adds that this arbitrary discrimination is more evident when indicating that what has been prohibited, is the possibility of appeal, by way of appeal to the National Council of Education, in relation to accreditation years, which allows the said appeal to any higher education institution who has been refused institutional accreditation.
Next, he argues that the specific application of the contested principle violates various fundamental rights, among them, the right to a fair and rational procedure, by denying an unjustified means of appeal such as an appeal, and leaving the university in a real state. Not protected. Likewise, it indicates that the freedom of education is affected, because it affects the independence of higher education institutions by denying them the appropriate administrative review of such a critical decision, such as the decision in which the CNA determines the number of years to be granted institutional accreditation, which can severely limit their capacity. On developing a self-tracked academic project, as it may be limited in identifying job vacancies and opening new jobs and places.
Thus, the requirement concludes that the contested standard will leave the accreditation decision in more or less than 4 years in the exclusive hands of CNA, a single public body, without any counterweight or any possibility of review, thus denying the inevitable appeal of compliance with fair and rational procedures To avoid discriminatory attitudes and to avoid violating the freedom of education.
The first chamber of the TC declared acceptance of the application because the precedents examined allow to conclude that all requirements required under Article 93, eleventh paragraph of Political constitution With regard to the provisions of Article 84 of LOCTC. In addition, it granted transfers to all sections of the judicial administration in which the request affects, to the House of Representatives, the Senate and the President of the Republic, so that within 20 days they can formulate notes and provide precedents.
After the Chamber appointed by the President of the TC declares the deductible requirement admissible, it is up to the full court, in the end, to rule on the merits of the appeal.
See full text of the requirement, Rol N ° 9941-20.
“Creator. Devoted pop culture specialist. Certified web fanatic. Unapologetic coffee lover.”